Last week, Sen. James Inhofe (R-OK) and a number of other Congressmen with states who rely heavily on energy production for economic stability, sent a letter to EPA head Lisa Jackson expressing some concerns over her agency’s impartiality. At the heart of their complaints, a series of backdoor regulations the EPA has put into place in recent months: regulations that are not only harming American energy industries, but which are actively destroying jobs in a already troubled economy.

Now, the EPA doesn’t seem to mind that it wields extensive power that it’s using to change the very fabric of the American financial system, but residents of states whose economies are dependent on energy job growth – and the leaders of these industries – are starting to see a problem.

Before, it might have just been industries that environmentalists considered “problematic,” but a recent EPA rule is about to put a wrench in the operations of nearly every carbon-dioxide-expelling creature or industry on the planet. The National Ambient Air Quality Standards for Ozone, part of the Clean Air Act, currently demands that ozone emissions be limited to 75 parts per billion. That standard was put into place only two years ago, and companies are only now beginning to come into compliance. Instead of allowing industries to meet this standard, though, the EPA immediately moved the goalposts: they are now considering standards that would limit ozone emissions to only 70 or, more stringent yet, 60 parts per billion.

Apart from economic and social context, these numbers seem meaningless. But consider this: if the EPA were to choose the lesser of the standards, 70 parts per billion, only 24% of the 675 US counties who monitor ozone would be in compliance. If the bar were lowered to 60 parts per billion, only 4% of counties would make the cut. All of the areas that didn’t meet the standard would become subject to strict EPA scrutiny, as well as billions in fees and fines. Some of the more egregious offenders might even lose federal highway funding, and find themselves under the never-ending watchful eye of Lisa Jackson’s already-intrusive environmental watchdogs.

(more…)

There’s a battle brewing over Earmark reform in the Senate, and Sen. James Inhofe of Oklahoma appears ready to make it very public.

Inhofe has emerged as the chief opponent to DeMint’s anti-earmarking efforts and has quietly been preparing for this fight for months. He said Tuesday that he will deliver a “pretty strong statement” on the Senate floor Monday that will accuse DeMint of favoring earmarks until they fell out of political vogue.

However, DeMint has already acknowledged his past as an Earmarker and Inhofe has voted for a similar measure in the past. That turns any charge of simply playing politics back on him. This is also another example of the continued influence of the Tea Party movement. DeMint already has ten Senators lined up behind him. There’s said to be concern among Senators as to how a failure to act might reflect upon members up for re-election in 2012. The Tea Party has already shown its willingness to primary incumbents with which it disagrees. To paraphrase an old movie icon, Do you feel lucky, Senator? Well, do ya? (more…)

We know why new investment in auto assembly in recent decades has not gone to Michigan but to, say, Alabama, Tennessee, Kentucky. In short and making no effort to put too a fine point on it, this is to avoid the crushing weight of the collective bargaining agreements that killed American auto manufacturing.

We also know why the unions push “green jobs” so aggressively, despite the overwhelming evidence that the schemes harm employment (that is, reduce the overall work force): as effectively federally mandated (but certainly “federally”– that is, taxpayer) — funded) jobs, they are uniformly de facto or de jure Davis-Bacon or otherwise union jobs.

Read the following excerpt from Sen. James Inhofe’s opening statement in a Senate Environment and Public Works Committee hearing today on that body’s version of cap-and-trade energy rationing, Kerry-Boxer:

“Let me recount a telling moment in [a recent] hearing. Sen. Sessions asked the government witnesses-and they were CBO, EPA, EIA, and CRS-whether anyone disagreed with the finding that the net effect of cap-and-trade would be a reduction in jobs. None did.”

But at least these schemes increase the union labor force. And that’s really what’s important.

(more…)